1381 replies to this topic

[dcmissle]

Life imitating art, according to Nick. Carmine is machine-gunned, Tito shot-gunned, and Theo shot in the back running up the stairs, while Lucky is at the baptism. Revenge of the old school.

Interesting stuff, but far too simplistic. Tom Verducci threw a discordant note into the aria just as the compelling ending was picking up steam:

Quote

Like Beane, Epstein made his mark in baseball by understanding what numbers could reveal about the value of ballplayers. But the more Epstein learns, the more he values the human side of the game, in part because it is much more difficult to understand. His trust in his scouts often trumps his trust in numbers. Epstein, for instance, won't acquire a player, professional or amateur, with good numbers unless his scouts like him.

http://mobile.sports...632/5/index.htm

[David Laurila]

Humphrey, on 10 October 2011 - 12:55 PM, said:

At least the Baylor deal made up quite a bit for the Sox getting another Nick Cafardo favorite, Mike Easler...

In his first of two seasons with the Red Sox, Easler hit .313/.376/.516 with 63 extra-base hits and an OPS+ of 140. In his, Baylor hit .238/.344/.439 with 55 extra-base hits and an OPS+ of 111. Their second seasons, respectively, were pretty much a wash statistically.

[tims4wins]

This about sums it all up

Quote

Now that its over, my feeling on this team is the Red Sox are very statistics minded, and the problem with stat people is sometimes they dismiss the intangibles that players have. J.D. Drew and Carl Crawford are the prime examples. They bring nothing to the table or in the clubhouse, but statistically they wash out better than their actual performance. But character counts. Stat guys think team chemistry and leadership are dispensable, but its clear that when your team is collapsing or in a deep hole, it helps to have tough characters to right the ship. Bring back the "Idiots." They were at least fun to watch.

Bill, Adams, Mass.

Great analysis.

Edit: it baffles me that people argue that Crawford was a stats signing. Yes, his defensive value was tied to stats, but if anything, he was an "excitement" signing. Fast player who flies around the field, steals bases, makes diving catches, and seemed to be a great teammate and personality in Tampa Bay. He had no personality this year because he SUCKED, not because of his "character".

Double edit: also, how quickly they forget. Down 3-2 in the ALCS to Cleveland, season on the line, about to squander a bases loaded, no out opportunity, JD hits the grand slam. It's a shame he wasn't one of the "idiots", then he might have popped up on the first pitch or something awesome like that.

Edited by tims4wins, 11 October 2011 - 04:18 PM.

[mt8thsw9th]

How does something "wash out better"?

[touchstone033]

tims4wins, on 11 October 2011 - 03:52 PM, said:

Double edit: also, how quickly they forget. Down 3-2 in the ALCS to Cleveland, season on the line, about to squander a bases loaded, no out opportunity, JD hits the grand slam. It's a shame he wasn't one of the "idiots", then he might have popped up on the first pitch or something awesome like that.

It's baffling to me that folks keep bringing up the 2004 team as a model of clubhouse verve, but forget (conveniently) that it was a loaded team and staffed with players who were acquired for their under-appreciated abilities -- a philosophy espoused by the "statistics minded." Ortiz, Mueller, Millar, Bellhorn...

And it was these same idiots that blew the series (thanks in large part to Grady Little completely ignoring the statistical analysis given to him by the club) the year before, and the same idiots who lost the first three games of the 2004 ALCS. If Dave Roberts had been thrown out, you know these same people would be talking about the idiots' (lack of) character responsible for the two chokes...

[mt8thsw9th]

http://www.boston.co...=all#readerComm

Quote

both sides would lobe to get this done before the first World Series pitch is thrown

[pantsparty]

When Nick does his mailbag pieces I wonder if the letters he publishes with crazy trade suggestions are to show how idiotic the people who email him are or because he actually thinks they are some insightful thinking.

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

Considering Nick just came around to the "hey Duquette maybe wasn't all that bad" bandwagon this week, I'm guessing his standards for insightful aren't that high...

[The Gray Eagle]

World Series ratings are down for the 18-49 age group, and Nick blames the children. Why don't these dumb kids today like things that old people like? Because kids today, with the long hair and the rock and roll and the drugs! They should get off his lawn. And grow up!

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

The Gray Eagle, on 24 October 2011 - 11:33 AM, said:

World Series ratings are down for the 18-49 age group, and Nick blames the children. Why don't these dumb kids today like things that old people like? Because kids today, with the long hair and the rock and roll and the drugs! They should get off his lawn. And grow up!

That column was surreal. My favorite part was the bit about how when he was a kid, there was nothing better than listening to the Sox on the radio. Well, Nick, that's because back then there was no other way to follow the friggin' game live, and there really weren't any other ways for kids to do anything at 8 p.m. - unlikely to be TVs in the rooms, no video games, your friends all had to go home, etc. I guess the Sox were better than flipping over cards and playing solitaire. Does he really expect kids, in this day and age of instant gratification where they can video chat with their friends on their phones, to lay on their backs on their beds listening to the game in the dark?

[Kramerica Industries]

"Parents, make your kids watch baseball games."

[BannedbyNYYFans.com]

In the post press conference coverage Carfardo literally called Lackey's TJ surgery "elective" and said the elbow is the same as when the Sox signed him. The procedure is more for "mental reasons than physical".

[joyofsox]

More of the same.

He leads with a bit on different managing philsophies that reads like he's explaining it to a group of 8-year-olds.

***

Quote

Apropos of nothing
4. Why do I think Tim Bogar winds up in a significant role with the Red Sox or Cubs?

[Why does any thought flitter through your head, Nick? It's a mystery.]

Updates on nine

1. Larry Bowa, analyst, MLB Network - He has become a superb analyst. His tell-it-like-it-is style as a manager/coach has translated well to TV. Bowa enjoys his new role, but still has aspirations of managing in the majors again.

[WOW!!!!!!]

2. David Ortiz, DH, free agent - In a WEEI interview last week, he seemed upset that the Red Sox did not re-sign him during the exclusivity period. But why would they? Ortiz has limited options. And as we wrote last week, the best thing for him is if a National League team takes a leap of faith and projects him as a first baseman, which would get more teams involved. ...

[Can you really use the word "project" for a 36-year-old guy with 15 years in the bigs?]

Also, Ichiro was not happy about his poor performance in 2011 and wants to do better in 2012.

Edited by joyofsox, 06 November 2011 - 12:29 PM.

[judyb]

Nick's response to a question about the Red Sox possible interest in Yoenis Cespedes and whether they'd consider trading Ellsbury or have him play RF if they signed him:

Quote

Sure, they're in on all of the outstanding international players. Don't think it would affect Ellsbury. He's the centerfielder for as long as he wants to be. He'll be a free-agent after next season so we'll see what he and Scott Boras want to do.

I know he's not the only one who keeps saying that, but would somebody please tell me it's not true again? Because aging is hard enough without having to worry that I missed a whole year somehow.

[mt8thsw9th]

He's confusing the offseason prior to 2012 as being part of the 2012 season. Thus "next season" is 2013 for Nick. He's a FA after 2013, not next season (2012).

[Dick Pole Upside]

Fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner....

Quote

2. Why were teams afraid of Bobby Valentine, who seemed like the perfect choice for the Red Sox?

[Brianish]

I find it so hard to believe he doesn't understand. He's got to be just shit-stirring.

[Lose Remerswaal]

CHB references this in his column today, asking why Cafardo's suggestion was ignored.

[Brianish]

Because he isn't part of the Red Sox organization and it was dirt stupid?

No, that's too simple. There has to be a more sinister reason. Bring me my mystery-solving pipe!

[BoSoxLady]

Quote

Wouldn’t former Red Sox bench coach Brad Mills have been a good candidate for their managerial opening?

Brad Mills is under contract with the Astros through 2013. Also, there any way in hell Mills would consider taking Tito's job after the manner in which his best friend was treated?

Time for the home, Nick!

[Dick Pole Upside]

Lose Remerswaal, on 13 November 2011 - 09:03 AM, said:

CHB references this in his column today, asking why Cafardo's suggestion was ignored.

CHB tire-pumping for Nick is the height of comedy.

[Dick Pole Upside]

Fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner (again):

Quote

2. The manager - We must admit, we’re not wowed by the managerial search. It seems to focus on inexperienced, controllable “prospects’’ rather than proven commodities. This doesn’t seem like a logical approach given what happened last season. Cherington and his team seem deathly afraid of naming a strong manager such as Bobby Valentine. It remains to be seen if Cherington will find the next great manager or someone he may have to fire soon into his tenure.

I think he thinks if he repeats it long enough the front office might relent...

Cherington up, digging in.

[PedroKsBambino]

Lose Remerswaal, on 13 November 2011 - 09:03 AM, said:

CHB references this in his column today, asking why Cafardo's suggestion was ignored.

Because the Red Sox organization has, for a decade now, had a completely different approach and focus than that used by Cafardo (or CHB). It is just stunning that these guys still don't get it.

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

PedroKsBambino, on 14 November 2011 - 01:24 PM, said:

Because the Red Sox organization has, for a decade now, had a completely different approach and focus than that used by Cafardo (or CHB). It is just stunning that these guys still don't get it.

I know that this is a rhetorical question, but it's an important one.

It's not really stunning because Cafardo has provided us with reams and reams of evidence that he's a lazy thinker who is very happy to cover baseball like it was 1976. Why would he want to get "it"? Cafardo's job is covered for life and there is absolutely zero incentive for him to learn anything new about MLB after a certain year. Furthermore he can spin his ignorance as his way of looking at things in an "interesting counter-balance to the way that the Boston front office views players and baseball operations." You know, write about baseball the way that real fans or scouts or whomever still talks about baseball in terms of pitcher's wins and RBIs.

Eventually Cafardo's contacts are going to be drummed out of the league (for failing to evolve) or they're going to die. And he is going to have no one left to talk to. Unfortunately, this isn't going to have happen for another decade or two. This means we're stuck with this clod who thinks "Why didn't the Red Sox talk to Bobby Valentine?" is a. a legitimate question and b. only seems to ask his fucking readers instead of the people that he's paid to cover.

And that's what pisses me off about a guy like Cafardo, he expects his readers to do all of the heavy lifting. His baseball notes columns are nothing but talking in circles with a few questions that can be easily answered by anyone who pays the game even a small modicum of attention.

Bobby Valentine wasn't considered by the Red Sox for a variety of reasons: one, he's been out of the game for awhile; two, he (presumably) doesn't share the organization's philosophy; three, he's a high-profile manager (read: loud-mouth) who has a bit of a star complex and four, if you take all three earlier reasons and add the fact that he wasn't tremendously successful (no World Series winners) in his previous jobs and you can pretty much come to the conclusion why Bobby Valentine wasn't interviewed. This isn't rocket science.

[Brianish]

But he snuck back into his dugout in a mustache! That's how you know a guy is good!

[bd11]

I'll never defend this guy again after today's abomination.

[mt8thsw9th]

Which is?

[Bigpupp]

mt8thsw9th, on 27 November 2011 - 09:55 AM, said:

Which is?

Well for one...

Quote

7. John Farrell, manager, Toronto - The Red Sox tried to get him early in the process, couldn’t come close to agreeing on compensation, and now are trying again? Farrell may fit what Ben Cherington’s staff is looking for in a manager, but Valentine provides far more excitement.

Edited by Bigpupp, 27 November 2011 - 11:17 AM.

[Mo's OBP]

Wish I could be a fly on the wall for Nick's first one-on-one interview with Valentine after he is hired. Approaches with pen and notebook, nervously stumbling over his introductory words, hands trembling. You know, exactly like a 13 year old girl meeting Joe Jonas for the first time.

[Tyrone Biggums]

Cafardo has had a hard on for Bobby V ever since they axed Tito. The more I look at it from an unbiased point of view, we could do worse than Valentine (Gene Lamont comes to mind). However, I wonder if Bobby V promised him a job at ESPN.com or to give him exclusives once he became the Sox manager. This is ball washing at its finest folks.

[pat3734]

I counted at least 4 mentions of Bobby V (three were bolded). I'd go back to double check, but my eyes are still bleeding.

[CraisPikeCole]

Reading Cafardo is like looking back on one of my old college essays - I had no sources so I just rambled on in a decent prose making obvious statements until my length-requirement was fulfilled.

[mt8thsw9th]

Mo's OBP, on 27 November 2011 - 11:30 AM, said:

Wish I could be a fly on the wall for Nick's first one-on-one interview with Valentine after he is hired. Approaches with pen and notebook, nervously stumbling over his introductory words, hands trembling. You know, exactly like a 13 year old girl meeting Joe Jonas for the first time.

"Remember when you were with The Beatles?"

[The Gray Eagle]

So no comments on the latest drivel?
http://www.boston.co...over_at_fenway/

Is everyone getting tired of pointing out the nonsense week after week? Or do we not want to do that now that Cafardo is so powerful that he gets to pick Red Sox managers?

"The bottom line is this: You must have a good closer to win the American League East and make it deep into the playoffs." Oh okay. Is that true? It must be, if it's the bottom line, right?

Seems like a statement like that should come after a couple of paragraphs of supporting evidence, but this one is the very first line. That's our Nick.

Edited by The Gray Eagle, 12 December 2011 - 01:01 PM.

[Wilco's Last Fan]

The Gray Eagle, on 12 December 2011 - 12:58 PM, said:

So no comments on the latest drivel?
http://www.boston.co...over_at_fenway/

Is everyone getting tired of pointing out the nonsense week after week? Or do we not want to do that now that Cafardo is so powerful that he gets to pick Red Sox managers?

"The bottom line is this: You must have a good closer to win the American League East and make it deep into the playoffs." Oh okay. Is that true? It must be, if it's the bottom line, right?

Seems like a statement like that should come after a couple of paragraphs of supporting evidence, but this one is the very first line. That's our Nick.

My favorite part is when he argues against Andrew Bailey in part because his save totals have declined in the past three years: from 26, to 25, to 24.

Edited by Wilco's Last Fan, 12 December 2011 - 01:09 PM.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

The Gray Eagle, on 12 December 2011 - 12:58 PM, said:

So no comments on the latest drivel?
http://www.boston.co...over_at_fenway/

Is everyone getting tired of pointing out the nonsense week after week?

This. His very first line was that you can't win in the AL East without a good closer and I immediately thought of the 2008 Rays, when Percival was on the DL and didn't pitch most of the latter half of the year. Then I threw the paper across the room.

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

Smiling Joe Hesketh, on 12 December 2011 - 01:15 PM, said:

This. His very first line was that you can't win in the AL East without a good closer and I immediately thought of the 2008 Rays, when Percival was on the DL and didn't pitch most of the latter half of the year. Then I threw the paper across the room.

It's just so stupid. It's been since, what, 1993, that a team other than the Sox/Yanks/Rays won the division, right? And in those 18 years, Yanks won 14 of those titles? And Rivera was the closer for how many of those years? Just such an empty statement to make.

[Brianish]

Correlation implies causation. Obviously, if Rivera was the closer during many Yankee successes, the Yankees succeeded BECAUSE Rivera was the closer.

And you can't win without a strong shortstop. Derek Jeter is a winner!

WHAT MORE EVIDENCE DO YOU NEED?!

[E5 Yaz]

Brianish, on 12 December 2011 - 09:39 PM, said:

Correlation implies causation. Obviously, if Rivera was the closer during many Yankee successes, the Yankees succeeded BECAUSE Rivera was the closer.

Ah, the Tebow defense

[touchstone033]

The Gray Eagle, on 12 December 2011 - 12:58 PM, said:

So no comments on the latest drivel?
http://www.boston.co...over_at_fenway/

My favorite line was this:

Quote

But the Red Sox have learned the hard way that the bullpen-by-committee approach can slap you with a harsh dose of reality.

When was that "bullpen-by-committee"? That was, like, 2003, wasn't it? Didn't that team win 5 games more than last year's, even though the 2011 Sox had a closer?

Actually, here's what I learned from 2003's experiment with bullpen-by-committee:

- The Boston media will trash you if you pursue anything but an ultra-conservative strategy. Winning games is secondary to doing it right.
- Bullpen-by-committee will fail miserably...if you have lousy relievers.

[dynomite]

touchstone033, on 12 December 2011 - 11:36 PM, said:

- Bullpen-by-committee will fail miserably...if you have lousy relievers. get you to the 11th inning of the 7th game of the ALCS and would have gotten you to the World Series if your Manager hadn't decided to turn the game into a Buffalo Wild Wings commercial.

That's more like it.

[SydneySox]

He's right to point out the Sox abandoned the closer-by-committee tactic in 2003 though. Because they did.

Halfway into the season they abandoned the whole idea and took the newly-acquired Byung-Hyun Kim out of the rotation and made him an official closer where he made 16 saves.

The save stat might be entirely useless and this argument doesn't address his greater, stupider, unsupported argument that you need a closer, but given the Sox immediately went back to 'big-name' closers by signing Foulke in the 03/04 offseason, saying the Sox gave up on the idea pretty quickly isn't entirely wrong.

[touchstone033]

SydneySox, on 13 December 2011 - 12:15 AM, said:

The save stat might be entirely useless and this argument doesn't address his greater, stupider, unsupported argument that you need a closer, but given the Sox immediately went back to 'big-name' closers by signing Foulke in the 03/04 offseason, saying the Sox gave up on the idea pretty quickly isn't entirely wrong.

I don't deny the Sox gave up on the idea, but I read Cafardo's "harsh dose of reality" and subsequent call for a big-name closer to mean that the approach in and of itself is doomed to fail, not that trying something different means the media's going to crap all over you and make your life miserable and essentially force your GM to spend money on a closer to appease the writers.

The funny thing is I agree with Cafardo's conclusion that we need to sign someone decent for the pen (tho' not necessarily a "closer"). Losing Papelbon and Bard (if he sticks as a starter) makes the bullpen a helluva lot weaker. That said, following the Mets' strategy this year, or Tampa's every year of signing a number of undervalued bullpen arms would be the way to go, IMHO, not spending a crapload of $$ on one guy just because he's got a lot of saves.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

SydneySox, on 13 December 2011 - 12:15 AM, said:

He's right to point out the Sox abandoned the closer-by-committee tactic in 2003 though. Because they did.

Halfway into the season they abandoned the whole idea and took the newly-acquired Byung-Hyun Kim out of the rotation and made him an official closer where he made 16 saves.

The save stat might be entirely useless and this argument doesn't address his greater, stupider, unsupported argument that you need a closer, but given the Sox immediately went back to 'big-name' closers by signing Foulke in the 03/04 offseason, saying the Sox gave up on the idea pretty quickly isn't entirely wrong.

In 2008 the Rays used Percival, Wheeler and Howell to close games, chosen somewhat at random throughout the season. And when the season was on the line in Game 7 in 2008, they went to David Price.

Nick's idiocy isn't about 2003. It's about the much more recent example he completely overlooks. He's a dim man.

And while he listed the caveat that it was the AL East, did he already forget that the Indians won a ton of games in 2007 with Joe Borowoski as their closer, who racked up saves but kinda sucked?

[lexrageorge]

The bullpen closer by committee that the Red Sox used in 2003 was an abysmal failure when it was in effect. The problem, however, was not that it was a committee, but instead it was because it was a committee of clowns. Brandon Lyon, Rudy Seanez, Mike Timlin, Ramiro Mendoza, and Chad Fox (although he got better once he escaped the AL) wasn't a quality bullpen. Adding BK Kim and The House of Scotts allowed them to jettison the flotsam (Fox and Seanez) and reset the roles of Lyon, Timlin, and Mendoza. But that's because they got 3 bullpen arms that were much better than what was there, not because they got a closer necessarily.

Having said that, Cafardo does have a point that the Sox pen going into 2012 is a cause for concern. I don't care what anyone says: Bobby Jenks ain't no Papelbon, and he ain't no Bard either. Pointing to Jenks' stats in 2007 and 2008 ain't gonna change that, either.

EDIT: Corrected typo. Thanks tims4wins.

Edited by lexrageorge, 13 December 2011 - 10:57 AM.

[tims4wins]

Picking a nit here, but I think the term we should be using is "closer by committee", not "bullpen by committee". Almost every bullpen is by "committee" - you have your closer, your set up man, your LOOGY, your long reliever, etc.

[GreenMonster49]

Smiling Joe Hesketh, on 13 December 2011 - 09:22 AM, said:

In 2008 the Rays used Percival, Wheeler and Howell to close games, chosen somewhat at random throughout the season. And when the season was on the line in Game 7 in 2008, they went to David Price.

Nick's idiocy isn't about 2003. It's about the much more recent example he completely overlooks. He's a dim man.

And while he listed the caveat that it was the AL East, did he already forget that the Indians won a ton of games in 2007 with Joe Borowoski as their closer, who racked up saves but kinda sucked?

The Rays didn't really have a closer by committee until the very end of the season. Percival was the closer when he was healthy; most of Wheeler's saves came when Percival hit the DL with a knee injury in August. (Howell only had 3 saves.) While they certainly could have gone with a closer by committee, they didn't. What I take from this is that the Rays had a deep bullpen (WARs of 1.5 for Wheeler, 2.5 for Balfour, and 2.3 for Howell), and that even though their closer for much of the season had a -0.2 WAR and a 98 ERA+, the rest of the pitching staff was good enough (153 starts; ERA+ of 124, 101, 119, 100, and 127) that it didn't really matter.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

GreenMonster49, on 13 December 2011 - 11:32 AM, said:

The Rays didn't really have a closer by committee until the very end of the season. Percival was the closer when he was healthy; most of Wheeler's saves came when Percival hit the DL with a knee injury in August. (Howell only had 3 saves.) While they certainly could have gone with a closer by committee, they didn't. What I take from this is that the Rays had a deep bullpen (WARs of 1.5 for Wheeler, 2.5 for Balfour, and 2.3 for Howell), and that even though their closer for much of the season had a -0.2 WAR and a 98 ERA+, the rest of the pitching staff was good enough (153 starts; ERA+ of 124, 101, 119, 100, and 127) that it didn't really matter.

Which kinda puts to lie Nick's claim that teams in the AL East need a dominant closer.

[SydneySox]

Smiling Joe Hesketh, on 13 December 2011 - 09:22 AM, said:

In 2008 the Rays used Percival, Wheeler and Howell to close games, chosen somewhat at random throughout the season. And when the season was on the line in Game 7 in 2008, they went to David Price.

Nick's idiocy isn't about 2003. It's about the much more recent example he completely overlooks. He's a dim man.

And while he listed the caveat that it was the AL East, did he already forget that the Indians won a ton of games in 2007 with Joe Borowoski as their closer, who racked up saves but kinda sucked?

Calm yourself, my man. I was very specific in pointing out the Sox did abandon their attempt at a committee. That's not any sort of argument that his stupid broad point that it means a committee won't work is valid.

I don't think he 'forgot' I think he doesn't even notice because he's an idiot.

[mt8thsw9th]

I really don't think they ever honestly went into the season with a "committee", but it was entirely the media running with a comment made by Theo. The plan was likely to have it shake out that someone would end up establishing himself as the most reliable end of game option (and Embree/Timlin would be the main setup men), just like 75% of the teams in the league who are without a top tier closer. Urbina wasn't a top tier closer, and they didn't want to pay him as such. Foulke, on the other hand, was, and they paid him commensurate to his talent.

I still don't know how Crawford hit that slider from Fox out of the park.